If you want to receive the Mobile Lives Forum books, please fill the form with your personal informations.

Neo-nomadism

It is the mobility of his/her home that characterizes the nomad; thus the “neo-nomad” or traveller, who recycles a modified vehicle as a travelling home, positions himself or herself on the fringes of contemporary societies dominated by the values of sedentariness and residence.

Nomadism and neo-nomads

22 May 2013

The term ‘nomadism’ covers many categories of people who are mobile: the Roma community, lorry drivers, fairground people, seasonal workers etc… However, over the past few decades, a new category has been added to the list: neo-nomads or “travellers”. Here, a photographer and a university academic, both with expertise in the field, discuss the situation today.

01. Is the economic crisis the only factor that can explain the growth of nomadism in developed countries?

Ferjeux van der Stigghel

No, the crisis isn’t the only factor because you can become part of the world of neo-nomads, amongst other things, for all sorts of reasons. What unites them is a genuine philosophy, a search for a certain kind of freedom. Changing your life from one day to the next is all about a state of mind. If the economy remains at the heart of today’s developed society, neo-nomadism is perhaps an indicator of the changes that are possible in the society of tomorrow: the way we organise our survival, or the way we reduce costs. For example, their lorries are also their homes, so they don’t pay rent, and they can move these homes close to where they work.

A. L

I agree with this point. The world of neo-nomads, like those of other “travellers”, is a laboratory for the kinds of practices that could lead to real innovation, one that has wide implications.

Arnaud Le Marchand

The growth of nomadism in developed countries pre-dates the current economic crisis. It’s linked to changes in the way industry is organised (sub-contracting, the disintegration of support industries, a return of itinerant trade, just-in-time logistics, etc.), and a general increase in short-term, casual work since the end of the 1970s. The current crisis has very probably accelerated this trend, but it didn’t create it. Instead, the phenomenon of neo-nomads, and of squats, is actually tied to the crisis of the welfare state. That said, there’s also a more cultural, non-economic aspect to all this – a rejection of towns and cities, an involvement with rock festivals and “techno” music – and also a more political aspect, based on a libertarian or “post-anarchistˮ revival to use the American terminology.

F. V

For Europe’s neo-nomads, the advent of Thatcherism was clearly an explanatory factor in their development. Where I agree with Arnaud Le Marchand is that if you go beyond the contemporary notion of nomadism, you take the debate out of the purely economic sphere. In the US (where the vast open spaces led to mobility becoming a social practice), change and mobility are viewed as strengths, as proof of someone’s ability to adapt. In Europe, mobility is equated with fragility, and the idea of people completely changing their working lives, for example, isn’t something that’s readily accepted.

Ferjeux van der Stigghel

No, the crisis isn’t the only factor because you can become part of the world of neo-nomads, amongst other things, for all sorts of reasons. What unites them is a genuine philosophy, a search for a certain kind of freedom. Changing your life from one day to the next is all about a state of mind. If the economy remains at the heart of today’s developed society, neo-nomadism is perhaps an indicator of the changes that are possible in the society of tomorrow: the way we organise our survival, or the way we reduce costs. For example, their lorries are also their homes, so they don’t pay rent, and they can move these homes close to where they work.

Arnaud Le Marchand

I agree with this point. The world of neo-nomads, like those of other “travellers”, is a laboratory for the kinds of practices that could lead to real innovation, one that has wide implications.

The growth of nomadism in developed countries pre-dates the current economic crisis. It’s linked to changes in the way industry is organised (sub-contracting, the disintegration of support industries, a return of itinerant trade, just-in-time logistics, etc.), and a general increase in short-term, casual work since the end of the 1970s. The current crisis has very probably accelerated this trend, but it didn’t create it. Instead, the phenomenon of neo-nomads, and of squats, is actually tied to the crisis of the welfare state. That said, there’s also a more cultural, non-economic aspect to all this – a rejection of towns and cities, an involvement with rock festivals and “techno” music – and also a more political aspect, based on a libertarian or “post-anarchistˮ revival to use the American terminology.

For Europe’s neo-nomads, the advent of Thatcherism was clearly an explanatory factor in their development. Where I agree with Arnaud Le Marchand is that if you go beyond the contemporary notion of nomadism, you take the debate out of the purely economic sphere. In the US (where the vast open spaces led to mobility becoming a social practice), change and mobility are viewed as strengths, as proof of someone’s ability to adapt. In Europe, mobility is equated with fragility, and the idea of people completely changing their working lives, for example, isn’t something that’s readily accepted.

02. Why is nomadism so often seen in a negative light? Are all nomads on the fringes of society?

Ferjeux van der Stigghel

They are often faced with incomprehension and fear of the ‘other’. There is meanwhile a paradox in the neo-nomads’ way of life: their mobile homes are invisible in the fields or on the outskirts of towns, yet their skills make them an integrated part of society. This invisibility and visibility are all part of a simple truth that contradicts the commonly-held views about nomadism today. You just need to look at the daily lives of neo-nomads and ignore the sensationalism of the media to realise that they are people just like us, with the same worries – notably when they have children – but with other constraints and other obligations. As a result of the crisis, we are all becoming more aware of an alternative lifestyle, that of the neo-nomad. And yet, in my opinion, this alternative is actually a reflection of our own society: chaotic and organised, mobile and sedentary, marginalised and integrated.

A. L

Yes, and we can add another point. A lot of “sedentary” people are fearful of becoming nomads - or worse, ending up on the streets - because of the economic crisis and the changes it’s bringing. Whether or not those fears are well-founded, they create a sense of anguish and rejection of those who have “already left” – and who they are frightened of having to follow. For some, those fears arise from a realisation that the nomads aren’t actually that different from themselves.

Arnaud Le Marchand

The state is wary of nomads because they are difficult to control. Authorities develop an attitude of defiance – sometimes unconsciously – towards these groups, which is part of the reason for the hostility. In addition, there’s the suspicion of unfair competition – exercised by nomads, to the detriment of non-mobile traders, even though these suspicions are contradicted by the facts. Shopkeepers sometimes accuse fairground people of undercutting them on price because their costs are lower. However, it’s a debatable point, especially as fairground stallholders have no shop signage (brand protection). Meanwhile, employers can be wary of hiring staff who might suddenly walk out on them if there was a disagreement or the offer of a better-paid job elsewhere. Finally, there are traces of the issue of hygiene which still makes them appear suspect in health terms.

However, for me, most nomads are a part of society and the economy; they perform a whole series of functions, and act as an adjustment variable. And their cultural role, though denied, remains nonetheless an essential one, and notably in the history of cinema and live entertainment.

F. V

Here again, I agree with Arnaud Le Marchand, and would like to highlight the comparison between what has happened in Europe – particularly with regard to neo-nomads and the way they are systematically marginalised – and in the US, where mobility doesn’t make you an outsider. It really comes down to a question of perspective: for me, the neo-nomad is a perfect reflection of our society, with its qualities, its faults and its contradictions.

Ferjeux van der Stigghel

They are often faced with incomprehension and fear of the ‘other’. There is meanwhile a paradox in the neo-nomads’ way of life: their mobile homes are invisible in the fields or on the outskirts of towns, yet their skills make them an integrated part of society. This invisibility and visibility are all part of a simple truth that contradicts the commonly-held views about nomadism today. You just need to look at the daily lives of neo-nomads and ignore the sensationalism of the media to realise that they are people just like us, with the same worries – notably when they have children – but with other constraints and other obligations. As a result of the crisis, we are all becoming more aware of an alternative lifestyle, that of the neo-nomad. And yet, in my opinion, this alternative is actually a reflection of our own society: chaotic and organised, mobile and sedentary, marginalised and integrated.

Arnaud Le Marchand

Yes, and we can add another point. A lot of “sedentary” people are fearful of becoming nomads - or worse, ending up on the streets - because of the economic crisis and the changes it’s bringing. Whether or not those fears are well-founded, they create a sense of anguish and rejection of those who have “already left” – and who they are frightened of having to follow. For some, those fears arise from a realisation that the nomads aren’t actually that different from themselves.

The state is wary of nomads because they are difficult to control. Authorities develop an attitude of defiance – sometimes unconsciously – towards these groups, which is part of the reason for the hostility. In addition, there’s the suspicion of unfair competition – exercised by nomads, to the detriment of non-mobile traders, even though these suspicions are contradicted by the facts. Shopkeepers sometimes accuse fairground people of undercutting them on price because their costs are lower. However, it’s a debatable point, especially as fairground stallholders have no shop signage (brand protection). Meanwhile, employers can be wary of hiring staff who might suddenly walk out on them if there was a disagreement or the offer of a better-paid job elsewhere. Finally, there are traces of the issue of hygiene which still makes them appear suspect in health terms.

However, for me, most nomads are a part of society and the economy; they perform a whole series of functions, and act as an adjustment variable. And their cultural role, though denied, remains nonetheless an essential one, and notably in the history of cinema and live entertainment.

Here again, I agree with Arnaud Le Marchand, and would like to highlight the comparison between what has happened in Europe – particularly with regard to neo-nomads and the way they are systematically marginalised – and in the US, where mobility doesn’t make you an outsider. It really comes down to a question of perspective: for me, the neo-nomad is a perfect reflection of our society, with its qualities, its faults and its contradictions.

03. Do neo-nomads have a special relationship with the urban environment or its fringes/the periurban?

Ferjeux van der Stigghel

This question has been at the centre of a debate within the Noland’s Man collective since a project on neo-nomads was launched with the Mobile Lives Forum at the end of 2012. What’s emerged is that the neo-nomad is the very expression of the peri-urban. It’s a zone which is constantly being transformed but which also remains on the outer edge. It witnesses the disappearance of old structures and the creation of new ones, and so represents a form of “in-between” area, of the outskirts. Given that - even symbolically - travellers live on the outskirts of society, they encapsulate this notion of peri-urbanness. That said, we now live in an era when everyone is both mobile and sedentary. So, for me, nomadism is a label that doesn’t really have any meaning…

A. L

They are indeed on the fringes, but these can also be internal ones. Neo-nomads, or travellers, are on the edge, the frontiers of urban life and the outskirts; and that includes the social frontiers.

Arnaud Le Marchand

Special in the sense of extreme; they represent a version of urban mobility that’s taken to the maximum for some people – those who live in lorries – while others, who live in yurts, for example, are fleeing the town and its modern architecture, which can indeed bring them closer to the urban fringes/periurban. However, they sometimes create a “town” in the middle of fields, during gatherings, or take part in the life of the vacant spaces within towns, in a discreet way, furtive yet real, as is the case for fairground people and nomadic workers.

For some, there isn’t really much of a choice; it’s more a question of a lifestyle to which they are subjected, resulting in some form of rupture (family breakdown, job loss, etc.). For others, such as young people - though not only - it’s an opportunity to find themselves, to find their place in a travelling world, and also a way of life; on the basis of cultural background.

F. V

In Europe, society is really falling behind when it comes to the migrant’s place in society. Security policies are largely responsible for this – defining the migrant as some who has to conform in order to be “integrated” into society. And yet, this point of view can also be turned on its head, so that the migrant – whether nomad or neo-nomad – becomes a cause for renewal and that transformation is no longer seen as someone that has to adapt in order to conform with the norms of the society, but instead is seen as a potential source of the changes needed by a society that has to transform itself if it wants to move forward.

Ferjeux van der Stigghel

This question has been at the centre of a debate within the Noland’s Man collective since a project on neo-nomads was launched with the Mobile Lives Forum at the end of 2012. What’s emerged is that the neo-nomad is the very expression of the peri-urban. It’s a zone which is constantly being transformed but which also remains on the outer edge. It witnesses the disappearance of old structures and the creation of new ones, and so represents a form of “in-between” area, of the outskirts. Given that - even symbolically - travellers live on the outskirts of society, they encapsulate this notion of peri-urbanness. That said, we now live in an era when everyone is both mobile and sedentary. So, for me, nomadism is a label that doesn’t really have any meaning…

Arnaud Le Marchand

They are indeed on the fringes, but these can also be internal ones. Neo-nomads, or travellers, are on the edge, the frontiers of urban life and the outskirts; and that includes the social frontiers.

Special in the sense of extreme; they represent a version of urban mobility that’s taken to the maximum for some people – those who live in lorries – while others, who live in yurts, for example, are fleeing the town and its modern architecture, which can indeed bring them closer to the urban fringes/periurban. However, they sometimes create a “town” in the middle of fields, during gatherings, or take part in the life of the vacant spaces within towns, in a discreet way, furtive yet real, as is the case for fairground people and nomadic workers.

For some, there isn’t really much of a choice; it’s more a question of a lifestyle to which they are subjected, resulting in some form of rupture (family breakdown, job loss, etc.). For others, such as young people - though not only - it’s an opportunity to find themselves, to find their place in a travelling world, and also a way of life; on the basis of cultural background.

In Europe, society is really falling behind when it comes to the migrant’s place in society. Security policies are largely responsible for this – defining the migrant as some who has to conform in order to be “integrated” into society. And yet, this point of view can also be turned on its head, so that the migrant – whether nomad or neo-nomad – becomes a cause for renewal and that transformation is no longer seen as someone that has to adapt in order to conform with the norms of the society, but instead is seen as a potential source of the changes needed by a society that has to transform itself if it wants to move forward.